"excerpts from " larger work (partly pre3erved in the original langungP,, and p1utly tran~lated)." 1 While there is, in favour of this view, the fact that the canonical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles seem to have resulted from a process analogous to this, against it ie the fact that them are no links of connection in Daniel, ae there ere in the books in question. It Riso assigns no reason for the translator selecting certain portions of the book to be turned into Hebrew, and omitting others. There must have been at least two books from the twofold chronological arrangement. Further, it does not explain the peculiar phenomena presented to ua by the Septua- gint V,•rsion preserved to us in the Codex Chisianus. (7) If we may venture to suggest another theory, it would be that, as Daniel was originally compiled from fly-leaves, some of these tracts were composed in Aramaio, others in Hebrew, and that the whole was edited by some one who wrote the prologue. It would be impossible to assign the reason why a writer, to whom two languages were equally familiar, should write one leaflet in one language, and another in another. After they had been so written, it would be natural that each tract, even though it may have been epitomized, should be kept in the canonical book in the language in which it was originally written. There may have been some reason of policy why certain prophecies that seemed to relate the overthrow of the Persian empire should be shrouded in Hebrew rather than published in Aramaic. The Persian police, who would certainly be able to read Aramaic, were probably ignorant of Hebrew. Since we have now discussed the question of the two languages, we must next; take them up successively. (1) As it is the first language which the reader encounters in his study of the Book of Daniel, we must look at the Hebrew. When one investigates the age of a work, the circumstances of the book must be kept carefully before him. If the book is one that has been frequently transcribed, if there is not any check on.-the changes introduced that exist in the case of a book that is regularly read, then we may expect to find alterations in the direction of modernization. Thus in Urry's edition of Chaucer, published before the recent effort was made after extreme accuracy, many changes are introduced, all in the way of modernization. In such an edition, the occurrence of a recent word had little worth in settling the date of the book; on the other hand, every ancient word had full chronological va.lue.1 So it is with Daniel. The presence of relatively recent words means much less than many critics make out, while the presence of ancient words has all its probative force intact. It has been said by Canon Driver that " the great turning-point in Hebrew style" between old and middle Hebrew "falls in the age of Nehemiah." The Jews, returning from Babylon to Palestine, found their own land filled with foreign settlers of differ- ent nationalities, to whom Aramaic was the only common tongue. The Jews were nece~itated to carry on commerce with these intruders, and therefore obliged to use Aramaic. But more in Babylon and the cities of the Medes, in which they had dwelt as captives, they would be obliged to uso Aramaic constantly; consequently, they soon ceased to speak Hebrew at all, and even when they wrote it, Aramaic words and idioms were prone to intrude. Even before the days of the Captivity, Aramaic had Legun to infect Hebrew-not unnaturally, as Aramaic was the language of commerce
1 From a private communication from him, we learn that he leans to the idea that the
original language in question was Aramaic. 2 Southey, in his preface to his • Chronicle of the Cid,' says, "The Spanish C~ronicles were all villainously printed, because the printers made use of the first manuscript they could find, and the corroct.ors did their be11t to bring the language to that of their 01.011 time, after the neweat and most approved fa.Ji,w11," THE BOOK OF DANIEL.